The Free Rider

It may be stated that, in a, greatly more, egalitarian or socialist society, the possibility or occurrence of the “Free Rider” (one who takes but does not give, in the most common definition) may have some ecological benefit.

In modern capitalist society, and especially in societies desperately trying to modernise, the basis of progress is ultimately the production of consumer goods, which is ultimately based on their demand. This equation does not take into consideration, partly because if it in fact did the whole system would collapse, two facts, being; a, that, as increasing population growth shows, globally, humanity is quite capable of feeding and providing a minimum decent standard of health care and education to everyone that requires it; and b, the increasing, and more importantly unsustainable, effects on the environment that the common, narrow, definition of progress entails, despite the fact that ignorance and famine are still very much a part of humanity’s lot.

In a possible conception of an anarchic society, based on voluntary labour, there may be many free riders. I would first stop to describe a possible way in which this society would be organised, using three distinct, but not mutually exclusive, means of operating, at least on an economistic way of looking at things.

First of all, let us assume that although there are no overt means of forcing people to work, two out of the three economies, so to speak, are dependent on direct participation. By this I mean that what you get out is in proportion to what you get in, based on the ability to supply or otherwise contribute. A Collective, in other words. By claiming that there could be two types of these, I mean that the first would be a small group of people, no more than 200, probably less than 80, who collectively produce one or more products or services, mainly for themselves but there may be some trade with other individuals or collectives. Such products could be organic food or recreational drugs*, assuming a relative deal of trust among collective members.

The first kind of collective is often referred to as a Commune; however, there is no reason for members to live in close proximity to one another or even in the same town.

The second method of “economic organisation” is, roughly, a form of Syndicalism. Syndicalism does not have to be dealt with extensively for the purposes of this argument, suffice to say that, for the purposes of this argument, groups of workers would provide goods and services on a voluntary basis. The beauty of this method is that if there is unreasonable demand for a particular public good, those providing it may strike until either the demand ceases or more workers join the particular Syndicate.

The third method involves dozens, or hundreds or thousands of individuals co-operating on a single project. The example I would give here would be providing housing for its members, but the running of public transport would be another example, run on similar lines as the Collective/ Commune with one or more Syndicate providing the necessary raw materials.

If we introduce an apparent “Free Rider” into this equation, it could just as easily be said that they would never need to lift a finger to obtain the things they need or desire as it could be claimed that they would soon starve to death. In either case, the claim that they would never contribute to society is often used as an excuse to justify wage-slavery.

However, even if a Free Rider were to squat an abandoned building it could be claimed that by doing so they would be doing a public service, as they would eventually be forced to repair and maintain their abode, but also I doubt that a determined Free Rider would be able to stay in one place for very long, if such an animal genuinely exists, without eventually joining at least one form of economic organisation.

The only option for the genuine Free Rider is a kind of semi-nomadic existence; never staying in one place for long, but equally unable to travel for long without having to use his/ her own means of locomotion (they walk, hitch or ride a bike). They would be less of a drain on some resources, especially fossil or renewable fuels, and their only possessions would be limited to what they can physically carry, often borrowing some items at one location and giving excess baggage away at another. Food would be limited to what they could beg or obtain through their own means.

In fact, obtaining adequate food would have to involve some kind of labour or another, even if it simply involves rooting through bins or the use of persuasion, or by resorting to hunting and trapping. I cannot see why any individual who lives this way should be denied basics like medical care and temporary accommodation if and when they need them, especially when they take so little from society** and only what they need from the natural environment.

*I think the drugs issue has to be dealt with reasonably. At the very least we cannot rely on the open market (aggressive marketing) or blanket prohibition (plain naked aggression) to deal with this issue.

**Especially with regards to demand on housing stock as any surplus housing would/ could be put to some social purpose.